|
|
| Line 48: |
Line 48: |
| * [[Creation anthropology]]: Creationists and evolutionists have serious differences regarding the origin and nature of humans. | | * [[Creation anthropology]]: Creationists and evolutionists have serious differences regarding the origin and nature of humans. |
| * [[Radiometric dating]]: A large volume of literature and evidence has been amassed giving evidence that the radiometic dating methods used to determine the age of rocks and fossils are based on a combination of demonstrably false and unfalsifiable assumptions, making them so unreliable as to be useless. | | * [[Radiometric dating]]: A large volume of literature and evidence has been amassed giving evidence that the radiometic dating methods used to determine the age of rocks and fossils are based on a combination of demonstrably false and unfalsifiable assumptions, making them so unreliable as to be useless. |
|
| |
| == Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==
| |
|
| |
| Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] stated that "Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Accordingly, creationists point out that there are over one hundred million identified and catalogued [[fossils]] currently in the world's museums.<ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos06.htm</ref>
| |
| Creationist insists that if [[macroevolution]] happened, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record that show the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links". If creationism is true then there should be a lack of transitional forms or at the very least there should be merely a handful of disputed transitional fossils.
| |
|
| |
| Charles Darwin himself stated that the evolutionary theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." <ref>http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm</ref> However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." <ref>http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html</ref> Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".<ref>http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html</ref> Darwin's theory of evolution required that transitional forms exist. As Charles Darwin became older, however, he became increasingly concerned about this lack of evidence in regards to the fossil record. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Scientist Dr.[[Michael Denton]] wrote regarding the fossil record:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
| |
| "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.<ref>http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| Creationist scientists state that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001</ref> Noted anthropologist [[Edmund Ronald Leach]] stated, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."<ref>http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241</ref>
| |
|
| |
| "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…" wrote David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088</ref>
| |
|
| |
| David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection (the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago), observed:
| |
|
| |
| :"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.
| |
|
| |
| One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]]. But Gould admitted, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2080</ref> In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/punct.asp</ref>
| |
|
| |
| The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way: "[[Stephen Gould|Gould]] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils."<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp</ref>
| |
|
| |
| One of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is [[Archaeopteryx]]. Dr. [[Alan Feduccia]], a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx:
| |
|
| |
| “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Creationist scientists have a number of arguments against Archaeopteryx being a transitional fossil find.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp]</ref><ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/321/]</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/]</ref>
| |
|
| |
| A second famous alleged transitional fossil claimed by evolutionists is [[Tiktaalik]]. Creationists have a number of arguments regarding the fossil find of Tiktaalik not being a transitional find. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2962/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp</ref>
| |
|
| |
| == The Fossil Record and the Creationist Position ==
| |
|
| |
| Creationist can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the [[macroevolution]]ary position exists and also show that the fossil record supports creationism:
| |
|
| |
| "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| "...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97 <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| "We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19. <ref>http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html</ref><ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes]
| |
|
| |
| == Mutations and the Life Sciences in General ==
| |
| Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and [[natural selection]] and [[genetic drift]] created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref> Furthermore, creationist scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the evolutionary model. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Lerner_resp.asp</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Creationist scientists do believe in [[Species|speciation]] and also believe that it happens much faster than the evolutionary theory would expect. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/207</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/</ref> Creationist scientists classify the various [[Kind|kinds]] of animals and plants (which they view as being genetically unrelated) using the discipline of [[baraminology]]. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Lastly, creationists and [[intelligent design]] theorists do not believe that the origin of first life is credible though naturalistic means and that it occurred supernaturally. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesislinks.html</ref>
| |
|
| |
| == Creationism, Macroevolutionary Theory, and Experimental Data ==
| |
|
| |
| Noted creationist Dr. [[Henry Morris]] in order to show that the macroevolutionary position is not verified by experimental data quoted a leading evolutionist regarding this matter.
| |
|
| |
| Dr. Morris wrote the following:
| |
|
| |
| "Even [[Ernst Mayr]], the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at [[Harvard University|Harvard]], who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." - The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>
| |
|
| |
| == Implausibility of [[Materialism|Materialist]] Explanations ==
| |
|
| |
| Dr. Norman Geisler wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to [[naturalism]], which they see as the philosophical presupposition of evolution." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Accordingly, creationist scientists often assert that evolutionary scientists regularly employ extremely implausible explanations to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.
| |
|
| |
| For example, Darwin in his Origin of the Species wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he wrote the following:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
| |
| "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." <ref>http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| Creationist often quote the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor [[Richard Lewontin]] admitted the following:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
| |
| "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31 <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp#r1</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| Creationist scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of evolutionary explanations:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
| |
| ...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution ([[Saltationism|saltationism]] and its relative, [[Punctuated equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, [[information]]-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| Dr. Safarti continues:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
| |
| The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
| |
| <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Creationists commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes: the [[Bacteria|bacterial]] [[flagellum]]<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331</ref>,
| |
| [[homing]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/ants.asp</ref>, the origin of flight in the animal kingdom<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref>, [[migration]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/migration.asp</ref>, the [[whale]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>, the [[Venus flytrap]]<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4340</ref>, the [[Bombardier beetle]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp</ref>, the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]<ref>http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm</ref> and various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.<ref>http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/146/</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Lastly, creationists often quote biochemist [[Michael Behe]] who wrote the following:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
| |
| "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[[[Darwin's Black Box]]]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| == Statements of Design ==
| |
|
| |
| Creationist often cite the work of [[intelligent design]] proponents who assert the biological world has the strong appearance of being created as can been below:
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
| |
| "One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are." - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]] <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
| |
| "During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age." - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| == Scientific Journals ==
| |
| Advocates of the macroevolutionary position have often claimed that those who oppose the macroevolution position don't publish their opposition to the macroevolutionary position in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref><ref>http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/</ref> Believers in the Abrahamic faiths believe that the the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ==Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus==
| |
| Roughly 47% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago (which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism) and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years. <ref>http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html</ref> In 1997 in the [[United States]] there was a Gallup poll done among scientists showing that 55% believed that man developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic Evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years. <ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth</ref>
| |
| A 1997 Gallup poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that man developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth</ref>
| |
|
| |
| According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp</ref>
| |
| This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.<ref>http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html</ref> In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the macroevolutionary position to a creationist position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.
| |
|
| |
| Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/Text/5d.html</ref> In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgement was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy." <ref>http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm</ref>
| |
| Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts, <ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref><ref>http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos</ref> the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.
| |
|
| |
| In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970's the scientific communities consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct. <ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists believe that the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed]].
| |
|
| |
| == Adherents and Opponents of Creationism ==
| |
|
| |
| Young Earth Creationism is a subset of Creationism most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic faiths]], especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]]. Most young earth creationists believe that most of the book of [[Genesis]] (including the creation accounts) is a straightforward narrative meant to be understood literally.<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943 Should Genesis be taken literally?] ''Creation'' 16(1):38–41, December 1993.</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Traditionally, [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism.<ref>James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/558/ Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.</ref> In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the young earth creationist view.<ref>Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1].</ref> While Young Earth Creationism is prominent in many conservative [[Protestant]] denominations, theologically liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations generally reject it.<ref>[[Henry Morris|Morris, Henry]], [http://www.icr.org/article/816/6/ Old-Earth Creationism] ''Back to Genesis'' April 1997.</ref><ref>[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8029_1.html What Conservative Protestants Believe] (beliefnet).</ref><ref>Jarvik, Elaine, [http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635177399,00.html Beliefs on Darwin's evolution vary from religion to religion] Deseret Morning News [[19 January]] [[2006]].</ref> The [[Roman Catholic Church]] has a cautiously positive view of the theory of evolution. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-11-pope-evolution-creation_N.htm</ref><ref>Heneghan, Tom, [http://www.beliefnet.com/story/182/story_18220.html Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn] (beliefnet).</ref> [[Orthodox Judaism]] currently has diverse opinions regarding young earth creationism.<ref>Rabbinical Council of America, [http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635 Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design].</ref> [[Ultra-Orthodox Judaism]] accepts young earth creationism.<ref>Winnick, Pamela R.,[http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/toledo_winnick030702.htm Evolutionary War] ''Toledo City Paper'', [[March 7]] [[2002]].</ref> Islam has a variety of opinions regarding creationism and the theory of evolution. <ref>http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/muslim_responses_to_evolution.htm</ref>[[Atheism|Atheists]] do not believe in young earth creationism.<ref>Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
| |
| December 1997.</ref> While [[Agnosticism|agnostics]] do not believe in young earth creationism there have been some notable statements of skepticism regarding the theory of evolution from agnostics.<ref>Woodward, Thomas E., [http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html Doubts About Darwin] (Apologetics Press).</ref><ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/03/agnostic_philosopher_caught_in_conspirac.html Agnostic Philosopher Caught in Conspiracy to Question Darwinism] ''Evolution News & Views'', ([[Discovery Institute]]).</ref> On the other hand, [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Thomas Huxley]] were both staunch proponents of the theory of evolution and they both stated that they were agnostics. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1025</ref><ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/desmond171.htm</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| == History of Creationism == | | == History of Creationism == |
| Line 238: |
Line 92: |
|
| |
|
| {{creationism portal}} | | {{creationism portal}} |
| | == See Also == |
|
| |
|
| [[category:Creationism]] | | [[category:Creationism]] |
